champu

Loose Change was interesting for me to watch because I'm neither a politician, a businessman, nor a stock broker, and some curiosities were raised regarding transactions and deals leading up to and following 9/11. This guy may or may not know more about these topics than I do, so I'm happy to listen to what he's got to say, even if I take it with a grain of salt. On the other hand, Loose Change was frustrating for me to watch because I am an engineer, and the guy overtly has no idea what he's talking about. There isn't enough salt in the ocean for me to rub my chin while he goes about building his house of cards. Witnessing the ignorance with which this guy makes technical arguments is like hearing a clock striking 13, not only do you know it's not 13 o'clock, but it makes you question all the information you've ever gotten from it.

I want to hear more cockpit voice recorders of people screaming in terror during the last moments of their lives, particularly of the planes I saw crash into the WTC towers on live television. Just to make sure they weren't remote controlled planes. Also, they should recover every molecule of all four aircraft (or should I say if there actually were four aircraft) and lay them out in a hanger and make sure any and all serial numbers match both United and American Airlines service logs and any end-item data packages compiled by Boeing when the planes were first delivered. I'd also like degrees in Material Sciences, Civil, and Aerospace Engineering so I can make sure all those people who are trying to explain to me that aircraft design, building design, fuel load, building contents, and aircraft speed/attitude at impact all have to be considered when deciding what should be expected aren't lying through their teeth to me.

The last bit here is always my favorite, "buildings don't eat planes," "planes don't vanish," "huge pieces would be left over." Yes, and, "the earth is clearly flat." Here's the video of the F4 crash test that mnealtx mentioned. The only huge, and I use the term loosely, pieces left are the tips of the wings which were shorn off because they extended beyond the edges of the test wall.

Yes, and besides, this finding is backed up by an earlier independent study conducted all the way on the other side of... ...the bay... In other news, insecure, defensive, and rigid liberals use Professor Block's new study as ammunition in an ongoing senseless battle over ideologies with insecure, defensive, and rigid conservatives. Meanwhile confident, resilient, and self-reliant liberals and conservatives go about their lives unaffected, save a few good laughs.

Yes, but you didn't S.T.O.P. (Slow To Observe Police) And really, isn't putting up a stop sign or speed limit sign and then waiting near it, "baiting criminals?"

If you think that's funny, you should hear some of my Auschwitz jokes, they're a real gas! Seriously, what is funny about this?

What in the... I'm trying to read this AP news story, but it's utterly laughable. They've just randomly intermingled bits and pieces of news stories from other bombings (insurgent/terrorist suicide bombings, not U.S. bombings,) extra support being pulled in to cover the Arba'een pilgrimage, and driving bans, completely obfuscating the scale of the story in the headline. I think this shows horrendous disregard for objectivity by both the author and the AP.

in chronological order... -selling parts and fixing computers at compUSA -intern working on test sets for commercial routing equipment -intern designing/writing database software -intern doing research in acoustics for two-way radios -digital/links payload system engineer once a huge nerd... always a huge a nerd...

Is nuts - state it this way. "I hold the average guy to lower standards than others" What a crappy way to look at the average man. I hold all people to high standards (politicians, engineers, doctors, plumbers, etc) because they are individuals that deserve respect and the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. What makes politics so noble that one would automatically hold those people to higher standards than the person that builds bridges, or doctors, or quality pornography movies, to plastic poop novelty toys? The consequences and punishments of low standards may vary from career choice to career choice, but the 'expectations for a single human being' shouldn't at all. Children don't even have jobs, but we should hold them to very high standards also, for the sake of them. Edit: people say that because it's a lame way for them to justify their outrage at politicians which they disagree with, especially when they'd do the same thing. It's very clever to hold someone to task for something they, themselves, would demand instant forgiveness for. I'm gigging on the ignorant cliche statement, not necessarily about the post topic itself You're right, and perhaps I borrowed too much of the language from the parent post. By "held to much higher standards" I was thinking more along the lines of "subjected to greater scrutiny," which are two different things. Standards should be standards, hence the negative connotations around the term "double-standard." But scrutiny is a limited resource, and should take into account the responsibilities of the individual in question.

All he did was mention how long it would take to get to downtown from an aborted approach to Dulles? Who cares? I can see getting upset if he had started rattling off response times of fighters that might be scrambled in such a scenario, but this? c'mon.

I know how you feel, it has been several hours since I last jumped.

Perhaps... but do you obey the 1TBS?

You've missed my point in a manner one might construe as intentional. Holding politicians to much higher standards than everyday people does not equate to ending their career because of something they may or may not have actually done, but that happens to be getting a lot of press. You're absolutely right that if all politicians operated in a moral and ethical fashion, scandals would be a thing of the past. But before that happens, one politician has to operate in a moral and ethical fashion, and, if something were to come up anyway, we have to not stone him or her to death before the case has seen its way past a judge. You're promoting an environment where it's not about what you do, but what the opposition and/or the press alleges you have done. And that is the dangerous ground to which I was referring.

I'm having a really difficult time getting my head around your stance on this issue. I understand you think that DeLay is shady, that he has been for some time, and that the negative attention from simply being charged with another ethics crime is but a punctuation mark on his past. That's all well and good, I get it, "If it walks like a duck..." and the like. But forget DeLay for a moment and pay a little closer attention to what you're arguing in a more general sense. It used to be that opponents, the media, or a combination of the two could throw, "A whiff of this type of behavior" at a candidate and stunt his or her career? It no longer is, and that should be of great concern to me? That's dangerous ground.

Welcome to the age of information.

Caring about this (or any, but especially this) thread would qualify as a psychological disorder. Reading it has been a bit of a guilty pleasure. While I wouldn't gawk at a traffic accident, I'm somehow captivated by a person so plainly devoid of wit constructing insults with the potency of a gnat and yet the pride of an olympian.

Happy World Land Happy World Land Where the fun never stops at only 80 bucks a pop in beautiful Happy World Land Welcome to a land where the fun never stops We've got six cool rides and 100 gift shops See this Happy World Land, all things bright and new This is Happy World Land, where all your dreams come true The real happiest places on earth are further east down the 91

Designing certain consumer electronics. Or in other words, having to sweat the many details of a product that, at the end of the day, you thought was ill-conceived or just plain stupid. All at the whim of a corporate marketing executive.

Which raises an interesting question. Does the average person hover over links and check the status bar to see where they might be headed? or is blind clicking more the norm?

From another related article on msnbc.com today Right now it sounds like much to do about nothing. It's remarkably difficult to perform uranium enrichment with the intent of creating a weapon, and have the operation look as though it were involved in research and refinement for use in power plants or other industrial applications.

49; hop-n-pops: 1 track dives: 2 RW: 3 hybrids: 7 FF: 10 4way video: 26

I agree completely. What constitutes "background nothingness" depends largely on what's going on in the rest of the "background", as one would expect.

To expand on my previous post (even though assuming anyone actually read it is a long shot at best... ) People like making accomplishments. You'll notice I listed "skydiver" and "engineer" when describing myself. Becoming a skydiver has presented a great many challenges to me, dedication of time and money to name a couple. Becoming an Engineer has likewise cost me time and money, and at times pushed me to the limits of my sanity to get through the enormous amounts of work it involved. This is why these are things I'm proud of, and it's why they are high on the list of things I use to identify myself. Being straight (just like my ethnic descent) hasn't presented me with challenges, it has consistently been, as you say, "background nothingness." and so these are things about myself towards which I feel more or less indifferent. But to conclude that my feelings regarding my sexuality should be the baseline for all of humanity would be absurd.

OMG I had no idea you were so funny!!!! I have a dream...

Communication in this thread between "The People vs Peaceful Jeffrey" seems to have broken down because "The People" do, in fact, understand PJ's position and yet still disagree with it, but are not making that clear in their responses. So PJ is going to keep posting forever, thinking that he simply hasn't presented his arguement clearly enough. So I'm going to make an attempt to paraphase what I think he's getting at, from the viewpoint of someone who disagrees with him, in hopes that maybe the madness will stop... here goes... If I were to list out things about me I might say, "I'm a skydiver, I'm an engineer, I grew up in Illinois, I went to UIUC, I live in california now, I'm..." and I could go on like that for a while. And in my case, I'd prolly get pretty far down the list before I thought to say, "I'm straight." or "I'm of French, German, and Hungarian decent" But just like the contents of the list are going to be different from person to person, the order is going to be different from person to person. Different people see qualities about themselves with different levels of importance. There's no magic formula everyone uses to describe themselves, "I'm a [insert hobby], I'm a [insert job], etc..." If you understand and respect that, there's no reason to think having a boogie, rally, or party that celebrates any item from the list is more or less a valid endeavor than having a boogie, rally, or party that celebrates any other item. The fact that this event happens to be taking the form of a skydiving boogie is irrelevant.